Sermon Archive	Sermon Archive
The U.N. and Hissing Snakes Reading Bringing about peace through violent means is what Howard Thurman speaks about in this reading: "A cursory glance at human history reveals that we have sought, for countless generations, to bring peace into the world by the instrumentality of violence. The fact is significant because it is tried repeatedly and to no basic advantage. The remark which someone has made, that perhaps the most important fact we learn from history is that we do not learn from history, is very much to the point. Violence is very deceptive as a technique because of the way in which it comes to the rescue of those who are in a hurry. Violence at first is very efficient, very effective. It stampedes, overruns, pushes aside and carries the day. It becomes the major vehicle of power, or the radical threat of power. It inspires fear and resistance. The fact that it inspires resistance is underestimated, while the fact that it inspires fear is overestimated. This is the secret of its deception. Violence is the ritual and the etiquette of those who stand in a position of overt control in the world. As long as this is true, it will be impossible to make power - economic, social, or political - responsive to anything that is morally or socially motivating. People resort to violence when they are unable or unwilling to tax their resourcefulness for methods that will inspire the confidence or the mental and moral support of others. This is true, whether in the relationship between parents and children in the home or in great affairs of the state involving the affirmation of masses of the people. Violence rarely, if ever, gets the consent of the spirit of men upon whom it is used. It drives them underground, it makes them seek cover, if they cannot overcome it in other ways. It merely postpones the day of revenge and retaliation. To believe in some other way, that will not inspire retaliation and will curb evil and bring about social change, requires a spiritual maturity that has appeared only sporadically in the life of humanity on this planet. The statement may provide the machinery, but the functioning of it is dependent upon the climate created by the daily habits of the people." [Thurman, Howard(New York: Harper and Brothers) 1951, p. 34-5, ed.] SERMON Paradox is found in contradiction. It is found is a sentence like, "I always lie." Does this mean you never lie or that you sometimes lie, because if it is true, you do not always lie, and if it is not true, then your are both lying and sometimes you tell the truth. Paradox is always deeply rooted in contradiction. Is it possible that there can be no peace without war? Howard Thurman, in our reading, wrote: ". . . for countless generations people have sought to bring peace into the world through the instrumentality of violence." Thurman points out that violence brings about results quickly through fear, but they are not always the results we want. For instance, when we seek to use violence to get peace - we are as likely to raise feelings of resistance which will grow in those we are violent towards. How long has resistance lasted in Northern Ireland? How long has resistance lasted in East Timour? Resistance is the number one by product of seeking peace through violence. This morning I want to raise the question: Does it take the threat of violence to make peace? Must there be the possibility of war to have peace? The answer to this question is far reaching. If the answer is "Yes" then we should not resist the production of arms, for it would only be through their presence that peace can exist. If the answer is either "Possibly" or "I do not know" then dare we risk the abolition of arms in the world? Only if the answer is "NO," indicating that the threat of war is not a condition for peace, only then can we be assuredly safe in calling for the end to the production and sale of weapons around the globe. Must there be the possibility of war to have peace? For the ideological idealist the answer is "NO." For the pessimistic ideologue, the answer is "Yes." But of course neither allows for paradox. How has the United Nations handled the question? The U.N. has been involved in both peacekeeping and peacemaking. Both have required the threat of arms use. A discussion of the history of the UN in these areas is useful. The differences between peacekeeping and peacemaking are important. The common distinction between peacekeeping and peacemaking was related to me by a neighbor, Col. John Gardham, Project Director for the Canadian Peacekeeping Monument and author of The Canadian Peacekeeper. Peacekeeping occurs when the U.N. is invited in by all parties involved, to provide (1) observers, (2) a larger force to act as a deterrent, (3) and/or to work the diplomatic corps behind the scenes. Peacemaking occurs when the U.N. moves in without the explicit request or agreement of both sides. In a historical review of peacekeeping efforts, those times when the UN is asked in, James Boyd extracts five commonalities: 1. an international military or quasi-military presence 2. the consent of the countries in which the operation occurs and that of the troop contributing countries 3. the objective of preventing and curtailing violence 4. strictly limited use of force to achieve this objective and 5. an attempt to create the conditions or environment in which peaceful settlement can occur. [Boyd, United Nations Peace-Keeping Operations: A Military and Political Appraisal(Washington: Praeger Publishers, 1971) p. 10-11] If we go back to the founding of the U.N. and the original concept of intervention we learn that the original charter had no conception of peacekeeping and the proposed intervention, peacemaking, was soon unworkable. The Charter of the U.N. provides a scale of actions which might be used to keep the peace. The first step is negotiation by the parties involved. This may involve the use of regional organizations rather than the U.N. Second, the parties involved may turn the dispute over to the Security Council which can recommend methods of adjustment or terms of settlement. Any member can also bring a dispute before the Security Council or the General Assembly. The Security Council can recommend non-military sanctions or military action. In Article 24 of the U.N. Charter it states ". . . in order to ensure prompt and effective action by the United Nations its members confer on the Security Council primary responsibility for maintenance of international peace and security." Article 12 prohibits the General Assembly from acting on any issue that the Security Council is already dealing with unless invited to do so by the Security Council. All five permanent members of the Security Council must agree on any action, therefore any one has a veto. The Canadian delegation to the U.N. Conference in San Francisco in 1945 worked hard to changes the provision that all five permanent members of the Security Council had to agree before any action could be taken. Louis St. Laurent, then External Affairs Minister, spoke in Parliament of the dynamics necessary for the Charter to work: If there is to be an effective United Nations Organization, the great powers must remain united under the strain and stress of the post-war period. At the same time it is essential that the middle and smaller powers would be accorded a voice in the peace settlement proportionate to the contribution which they have made in winning the war and in which they are willing to make to the problems of peace . . . The coming of the atomic bomb has opened our eyes to the appalling possibilities which may face the world if the United Nations should fail to achieve international co-operation. [Thomson, Dale, Louis St. Laurent Canadian(Toronto: MacMillan, 1967) p. 176] Article 43 called for an International Force at the disposal of the Security Council. Canada wanted to know what forces they needed to maintain as their obligation. It was up to the military Staff Committee of the U.N. to negotiate the details of Article 43. In 1947 the committee reported failure to reach any agreements after two years of negotiating. The advent of the Cold War disabled Article 43 and much of the security work of the Security Council. The idea of peacemaking was dead, and would remain dead till after the end of the cold war. Other than in Korea, forces were not sent in to any conflict without the explicit invitation of those involved. Peacekeeping became the process for over a generation. When Canada was asked to replace Australia for a two year term on the Security Council starting in 1947, the dashed hopes of the previous two years were noted by Mr. St. Laurent, Chairman of the Canadian Delegation: We are standing for membership in a body with a discouraging record . . . [because] in spite of its shortcomings, we in this country continue to believe that the best hope for humankind lies in the establishment of a world organization for the maintenance of peace . . . and if we wish to enjoy the benefits of such a development we must also accept responsibilities. [ed. fr. Thomson, p. 217] The next day in an address to the Second General Assembly, St. Laurent drove the point home again: There is a growing feeling in my country, as in other countries, that the United Nations, because of the experience of the Security Council, is not showing itself equal to the discharge of its primary task of promoting international confidence and ensuring national security. The Economic and Social Council is functioning fairly successfully. The specialist organizations are doing good work. But the Security Council, founded on what is called the unanimity of its permanent members, has done little to strengthen the hopes of those who saw in it the keystone of the structure of peace. It has done much to deepen the fears of those who felt that, with the veto, it could not operate effectively in an international atmosphere of fear and suspicion, where pride is often allowed to take precedence over peace, and power over reason. (fr. External Affairs publication, p. 34) The force called for under Article 43 was generally agreed to be the type of force that went into Kuwait and Iraq. It was a force that would be sent to areas of the world where it seemed that there were activities taking place which would endanger the security of the world. From the very beginning, peacemaking with military force was built into the United Nations Charter, not peace keeping. Today, the term peacemaking is also used in another way. Peacemaking is the diplomatic work going on behind the scenes - the work which is attempting to build the structures of an agreement which will allow the peacekeepers to leave. St. Laurent was ahead of his time. Not until 1963 were his issues spoken of again and so bluntly. Then Secretary General of the U.N., U Thant, spoke about the changes from the original thinking in the Charter of the U.N.: Due partly to the lack of unanimity among the great powers ever since 1946 and partly to the radical change in the nature of war resulting from the development of atomic and hydrogen weapons, there has been a gradual change in the thinking on questions of international security in the United Nations. There has been a tacit transition from the concept of collective security . . . to a more realistic idea of peacekeeping. The idea that conventional military methods . . . can be used by the United Nations . . . to secure peace seems now to be rather impractical. There has been a change in the emphasis from the use of military forces of the great powers, as contemplated in the Charter, [Peace making,] to the use, in practice, of the military resources of the smaller powers, which has the advantage of not entangling United Nations Actions in the antagonisms of the Cold War. (Address to Harvard Alumnae Association, Cambridge, Massachusetts, June 13, 1963) The idea of peacekeeping was not mentioned in the Charter of the U.N. It is a process that developed. First the Security Council had some limited success when it helped the Netherlands and Indonesia enter into negotiations in 1947. In 1948 it was able to arrange a cease-fire between India and Pakistan and set up a Truce Supervisory Organization in Palestine. At the same time the General Assembly was working out its own methods. Significantly they set up procedures of inquiry and observation that are still used today. Their immediate work bore fruit in the Balkans and Palestine. Their commission on Korea did not succeed. Canada played a major role in the development and implementation of the first major peacekeeping force in 1956, at the Suez Canal. When the Security Council was deadlocked, the issue came up in the General Assembly. It was there that Canada argued for some guts to be added to the cease-fire resolution that the General Assembly had already passed. It was Lester Pearson, Secretary of State for External Affairs, who called for a force "large enough to keep these borders at peace while a political settlement is being worked out." [To General Assembly, November 2, 1956 (External Affairs publication, p. 39)] Pearson was speaking of the ultimate military paradox and the greatest military challenge. It was truly peacekeeping, an "extraordinary military act because it calls for the use of soldiers not to fight and win, but to prevent fighting, to maintain cease-fires, and to provide order while negotiations are being conducted." [Cox, Prospects for Peacekeeping(Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institution, 1967) p. 4] This paradox is possible because the use of the soldiers, historically a rather banal force, is, under the U.N., guided by the highest of principles. With all the rhetoric about the U.N., and all the talk about peacekeeping and peacemaking, I have found one voice which speaks above all the rest in terms which inspire. It is John Robbins. Robbins was a founder of the United Nations Association of Canada in 1945. He had been a staunch supporter of the League of Nations Society of Canada before that. And while he felt that the World Federalists were filled with pie in the sky idealism that was unpractical, he supported the World Federalists because it was important, in his words, to "keep the idea alive, even if the world isn't ready for it." [McLeish, A Canadian for All Seasons(Toronto: Lester and Orpen, 1978) p. 112] Robbins said, "We Canadians should be trying to put into the stream of history what you might call a model for tomorrow." (Ibid, p. 19). Here he was echoing Pope Paul's words to him years before . . . "Canada is one of the few models in the world where people of differing religions, distinctive ethnic and linguistic groupings, live together in relative harmony . . . this is the road to the future - to a world at peace, in diversity."(Ibid, p. 274) I find that we have been served well in the world community by the idealism of our diplomats. They stand for something distinctly Canadian with an authenticity and an integrity which has allowed them to speak forthrightly the truth as they see it. While we may question the integrity of one politician or one diplomat or another, I believe that the general thrust of Canadian history is filled with creativity and noble paths in a world riddled with lesser values and self interest, colonialism and imperialism. When individuals speak to me of their fears of the armaments in the world, I have to listen, sometimes politely. I am not so idealistic as to believe that the U.N. can intervene when and where it wants without permission, as my native United States sometimes does in the Americas, under the guise of the Monroe Doctrine, I do believe that there will be times when the world must intervene, if only to make a statement about what is and is not allowed. There must be rules of conduct, basic rules, to which all nations adhere if there is to be anything we can call a world community. When I am faced with the potential for using violence to bring peace, a paradox, I stand strongly for all possible diplomatic means to be exhausted, for all possible sanctions to be given a chance, for every possible creative venture to be followed up before we resort to violence. I have a creative mind - I can always think of more ways to stop aggression than politicians or diplomats are willing to try - so I seldom support a military venture. However, there are exceptions. With overwhelming evidence of immediate humanitarian need, I support whatever measures are required to stabilize an area and provide the basics of life and dignity so that diplomacy may be given a chance. For instance, I believe that the United Nations should have acted forcefully and decisively in the former Yugoslavia as soon as it was known that the Muslim women were being systematically raped. That it did not act is a clear sign that the member nations are racist and the power structures of the UN can not overcome that racism. I believe that the fact that there have been over ten peacekeeping and peacemaking operations in the Middle East attests to the failure of diplomacy, precisely because the diplomacy is based in Western concepts of reconciliation. Practically, it means that all sides must hew, in some manner, to the ways of the powerful. I do not believe that this will solve problems. I believe that we must allow the suffering of the poor and the weak to lead us in solving problems. Conflicts are more often caused by strong but threatened institutions. These institutions have taken on a life of their own unrelated to people and make demands which can conflict with other institutions: governments, religions, businesses. When we have learned to pay attention to the needs of the victims rather than institutions will we truly be able to solve problems in ways where people can live together. Such a consciousness is at odds with the structures of the world, and I fear, even the U.N. All this is simply to say that politicians are hopelessly immature and self interested in the ways they exercise power in this world. Their ways are often at odds with the ways of season'd diplomats. There is still too much of the primitive animal left in us. Does this mean that we have to put up with arms and their use by the UN in search of peace? Before answering that, let me say that there is no acceptable reason for supporting the level of arms sales that exist around the globe. Canada and the United States are deplorably bound to the arms export industry and their governments complicitous in covering up the shipment trails and the subsidization of arms sales from their citizens. Do we have to put up with the use of arms by the UN? I believe so. I do not like it, but I believe that the realities of the world right now, and the present state of development of the soul and spirit of humankind, as well as the insecurity of our collective and individual psychologies requires that the UN be able to match the forces of evil in the world with power of its own, on terms that evil forces understand and respect. One can only hope that high minded ideals win out long enough for diplomacy to succeed. Must we make peace through violent means? Not always, but from time to time, seems to be the answer. Howard Thurman was right in pointing out that fact the we have been at it for countless ages. Even at the time the UN was founded there was a clear vision that force would be used to keep order, and that force would sometimes be imposed. Peacekeeping was the dream. The threat ov violence would be used to make peace. The nearsightedness of this approach is evident in Thurman's insight that the fear of the violence more often builds in a resistance that we have to deal with for generations. I do not leave you with much hope here. Just some resignation, for I do think there must be a better way, but I can not offer it, not yet. What I really want is just for people to behave better. Then the issues I have raised this morning would be just so much historical reflection. Alas, the issues, my friends, are real. Afterword Do we need the UN to have guns and threaten violence? I leave you with this parable told by a Buddhist monk, a parable by a man of peace about the need for defense that engenders respect and even fear . . . A certain village was being destroyed by periodic attacks by a cobra. At length, a travelling holy man came to the village and the plight of the people was made known to him. Immediately he sought the snake, to urge him to discontinue his destruction. The snake agreed to elave the villagers alone. Days passed, the villagers discovered that the snake was no longer dangerous. The word went out from person to person. "The cobra does not bite any more. Something has happened to the cobra. The cobra does not bite anymore." The fear of th34 cobra disappeared and in its place, there developed a daring boldness. All sorts of tricks were played on the cobra; his tail was pulled, water was thrown on him, little children threw sticks and bits of stone at him. There was no attempt to take his life by and direct means, only a great number of petty annoyances and cruelties which, when added up, rendered the snake's existence increasingly perilous. He was nearly dead when the holy man came back through the village. With great bitterness the cobra implored, "I did as you commanded me; I stopped striking the villagers and now see what they have dome to me. What must I do?" The holy man said, "You did not obey me fully. It is true that I told You not to bite the people, but I did not tell you not to hiss at them." [Thurman, p. 36-7] May we all, all over the face of this earth, learn to respect dignity and worth more than anything, so that no one ever need hiss to gain respect.	What to expect on Sundays Religious Sources "Views From These Pews"